California Attorney General Kamala Harris has once again loaded the ballot language against a pension reform initiative.

The measure in question, promoted by former San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed and former San Diego Councilman Carl DeMaio for the November 2016 election, would require voter approval of any future increases in public employee pensions. It explicitly states that retirement benefits already earned could not be reduced. They call it the “Voter Empowerment Act of 2016.”

However, the attorney general has the responsibility of deciding on a title and 100-word summary before petitions can begin circulating. Harris all but doomed a 2012 pension-reform plan by writing a highly misleading summary that sounded like talking points from the union opponents. Reed and DeMaio ended up retreating from the measure after they were unable to persuade a court to toss out the attorney general’s summary.

The AG’s office borrowed some of the same language in its summary of the 2016 plan, stating that it “eliminates constitutional protections for vested pension and retiree benefits for current public employees, including those working in K-12 schools, higher education, hospitals, and police protection, for future work performed.”

That interpretation is quite a stretch, and highly misleading at best. Harris’ office would argue that even though previously earned benefits could not be taken away, it’s conceivable that voters could cut back future benefits for existing workers.

More on Kamala Harris

“Oh baloney, baloney, baloney,” said DeMaio. He accused Harris of inserting union-friendly “poll tested phrases” while obscuring the main point of the measure: to give voters the final word on pension increases. He noted that the costs of “sweetheart deals done behind close doors” for public employees are becoming an increasing burden on local governments at all levels.

“We expected this,” DeMaio said of the slanted title and summary. “We will not be deterred.”

Reasonable minds can disagree about whether a requirement that voters approve pension and retiree health care benefits is wise public policy, but that was not the attorney general’s decision to make here. Her job was to present a fair and accurate title and summary.

In this case, she failed in that duty.

Home cooking

Kamala Harris is hardly the first state attorney general accused of skewing a title and summary of an initiative. Over the years, the courts have proved deferential to the attorney general’s authority over ballot language — even when it has engendered loud complaints from those on the other side of the issue.

Opponents complained: Neither the title nor summary mentioned that the initiative would raise the threshold for the Legislature to approve a tax increase from a simple majority to a two-thirds vote.

Court ruling: The omission was “not critical” because the 100-word summary need not include every detail, and all aspects of the initiative were heavily publicized and debated.

Proposition 209

(1996 affirmative action ban)

Dan Lungren

(Attorney general, Republican)

Position: Supported

Opponents complained: The California Civil Rights Initiative never mentioned the words “affirmative action.” Instead, it used what they regarded as the more loaded term of prohibiting “preferential treatment.”

Court ruling: A Sacramento judge found the language to be misleading, but a state appeals panel ultimately sided with Lungren.

Proposition 8

(2008 same-sex marriage ban)

Jerry Brown

(Attorney general, Democrat)

Position: Opposed

Supporters complained: The title “eliminates rights of same-sex couples to marry” was argumentative and prejudicial. They especially objected to the word “eliminates.”

Court ruling: The title and summary accurately reflected the text and intent of the measure.